Volume 1 • Issue 1 z.umn.edu/MURAJ Angola and the Legacy of Stalinism Ash Eberle Abstract: In this essay I will investigate how the legacy of Stalinism still affects Angola today, arguing that it negative- ly impacts the current possibility of an actual national Marxist-Leninist movement taking root in Angola. I furthermore argue that the four main institutions through which the party in control of the Angolan gov- ernment holds power—that is, the institutions of presidential patronage, the elite government bureaucracy, denial of the legitimate rights of ethnicities, and severe restrictions on the press and political freedoms— were inherited from Stalinism, and it is these four institutions that also serve to demobilize and demoralize workers. Stalinism has not only led to the collapse of the national workers’ movement there, however; it has also paved the way for an incredibly corrupt, bureaucratic, and authoritarian form of crony capitalism that deprives the great majority of Angolan people their most basic social and economic rights. This in and of itself makes it even more difficult for the workers’ movement to be revived and for a truly Marxist-Le- ninist revolution to take place. It can be said, then, that overall the legacy of Stalinism has deprived Angola the opportunity to become actually independent and free. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union ever; it has also paved the way for an incredibly corrupt, and the Eastern European socialist bloc, perhaps the most bureaucratic, and authoritarian form of crony capitalism important question for twenty-first century Marxists con- that deprives the great majority of Angolan people their cerns the legacy of Stalinism, namely: What are its conse- most basic social and economic rights. This in and of itself quences regarding the worldwide anti-capitalist movement makes it even more difficult for the workers’ movement to today? And, following that, how can we overcome these be revived and for them to organize a truly Marxist-Le- consequences to build a stronger, more resilient move- ninist revolution. It can be said, then, that the legacy of ment so as to prevent Stalinism from resurfacing in the fu- Stalinism has deprived Angola the opportunity to become ture? While the latter question is beyond the scope of this actually independent and free. essay, the first question is a readily addressable first step Before delving in to the substance of my argu- toward answering it. For the continent of Africa, I believe ment, I would first like to clarify what I mean by Stalinism that Angola is an important case study for being able to more broadly, and by Afro-Stalinism more specifically. In appreciate and understand the long-lasting consequences his essay “Doomed to Degeneration: Afro-Stalinism—To- of Afro-Stalinism in particular. Understanding the prob- ward a Genealogy,” Nimtz (Unpublished) offers a very lem, as the saying goes, is the first step toward solving it. In concise definition of Stalinism: this essay I will investigate how the legacy of Stalinism still …[It] is fundamentally and objectively—in affects Angola today, arguing that it negatively impacts the spite of the rationalizations offered by its current possibility of an actual national Marxist-Lenin- practitioners and apologists—a counter- ist movement taking root in Angola. I furthermore argue revolutionary current within the workers’ that the four main institutions through which the party in movement. Exactly because it wraps itself control of the Angolan government holds power—that is, in the mantle of the real communist move- the institutions of presidential patronage, the elite govern- ment—especially in the prestige of the Bol- ment bureaucracy, denial of the legitimate rights of ethnic- shevik revolution—it can be a more effective ities, and severe restrictions on the press and political free- counterrevolutionary force than the reac- doms—were inherited from Stalinism, and it is these four tionary right. (p. 2) institutions that also serve to demobilize and demoralize I argue that Stalinism created a movement in Angola that was workers in the labor force. Stalinism has not only led to the not only a more effective counterrevolutionary force than collapse of the national workers’ movement there, how- the reactionary right, but in being so counterrevolutionary, 1 actually ended up becoming the reactionary right after other ails of crony neo-colonialism. I will save the unpleas- Marxism’s so-called “retreat from Africa” (Hughes, quot- ant details for expansion later in the body of this essay. ed in Nimtz, p. 1). Afro-Stalinism, then, differs primari- ly from Stalinism in Europe because of its added layer of The Origin of Stalinism in Angola neo-imperialist exploitation. Afro-Stalinism, in addition In mapping the effects of Stalinism in Angola, it to striving to destroy workers’ movements in Africa from is necessary to first place the issue in its proper histori- the inside out, also seeks to destroy national liberation cal context by tracing the origin of Stalinist roots in this movements from the inside out. In the parts of Africa it part of Portuguese-controlled Africa, namely within the infiltrated, including Angola, it operated under the guise background of the Movimento Popular de Libertação de of assisting national liberation movements. What the his- Angola (MPLA)—which has been the main party in pow- torical record shows, however, is that a primary goal of Af- er in Angola since the mid-1970s—through its connec- ro-Stalinism was not to actually liberate African colonies, tions with the Portuguese Communist Party (PCP). The but to change the benefactor of African colonies’ depen- MPLA has its origins in the Angolan Communist Party dency—both economic and political, but the latter more (PCA), which was born in October 1955 as a clandestine so—from the Western imperialist powers to the Soviet political organization geared toward the independence of Union. An illustrative example of this for Angola is when Angola from colonial rule. Not only was the PCA heavily Brezhnev used Cuba’s victory in Angola in 1975 to “bur- influenced by Portuguese ‘Marxists,’ but César and Mar- nish Moscow’s claims to be the champion of Third World cum (1969) concur that the PCA itself most likely “did not liberation” (Gleijeses, 2013, p. 70), even though the Krem- amount to much more than an overseas cell of the Portu- lin was initially angered by and opposed to Cuban inter- guese party, organized by European civil servants” (p. 28). vention, fearing that it would upset the balance of pow- The problem, however, was that it was not Marxism that er with the United States. Indeed, Valenta (1978) writes: entered Angola through this arm of the Comintern, but The main objectives of Brezhnev’s leader- Stalinism (Nimtz, p. 3). The PCP itself was an internation- ship in African countries can be summed al arm of the main Stalinist party in the Soviet Union, and up as follows: first, to gain strategic benefits, perhaps the most infamous and doctrinaire one of them all mainly by generating local support for a So- in Western Europe. From the late 1920s until 1943, under viet naval presence along the coasts; second, the ideological guise of proletarian internationalism and to weaken U.S. and Chinese political and with the global backing of the Communist International economic ties in the region; and, third, to (Comintern), the Soviet Union spread its political influ- gain political and economic benefits, mainly ence—that is, Stalinism—to every populated continent in by attaining a voice in Africa’s affairs and en- the world. Rather than use this influence to assist the glob- hancing (if only in the long run) economic al class struggle and the independence projects of nations ties with African countries. (p. 7) subjugated under colonial rule, however, the Stalinist par- The devastating effects of this policy of political manipula- ties would defang revolutionary movements, or only help tion and fostering dependency cannot be overstated; when them insofar as their assistance was rewarded with a shift the Soviet Union collapsed, it was in no position to main- from politico-economic dependence on colonial powers tain control over its satellites, and the Western imperialist to dependence on the Soviet Union instead. Stalinist influ- powers and Japan were presented with a perfect opportu- ence on the PCA followed this same line through the arm nity to pick up neo-colonialism in Africa right where they of the PCP. While the Comintern claimed to be spread- left off.1 In other words, the independence projects that ing Marxism, what it was really spreading was Stalinism. the USSR supposedly championed in Africa were largely In 1956, barely a year after its initial formation, failures; these former colonies ended up no more econom- the PCA merged with the Partido da Luta Unida dos Af- ically—and therefore politically—independent after leav- ricanos de Angola (PLUA) to form the MPLA. Viriato da ing the socialist bloc. In Angola, this has resulted in the Cruz, former President of the PCA, took up the title of loss of countless lives and the suffering of millions because Secretary General of the MPLA while Agostinho Neto of civil war, abject poverty, epidemic disease, and all the took up the mantle of the new organization’s President. 1 As a tangential note, I argue that this is the main difference between Soviet intervention and Cuban intervention in Angola. On the issue of Nito Alves’s attempted coup, in which the Soviets sided with Alves and Cuba with the MPLA’s right to determine internal matters inde- pendently, Foreign Minister Paulo Jorge remarked: “There was a huge difference between them [the Soviets] and the Cubans.